Succession of Bishops

[Odell]

You said.

Eden,

The quote you used actually disproved your own argument. The Bible never implicates that the “true church” is an Apostolic Church (by the Catholic definition)…

HOLD UP STOP! Nothing you said here is SCRIPTURAL!
The only thing you said that was scriptural was verse 23 general assembly of the firstborn. But what does verse 22 say. “No, YOU HAVE approached mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in FESTAL gathering.”
Sounds like they they are already with the assembly of the firstborn. What you have given us is your false interpritation. And we want have any of that.

Notice they were with the hevenly angels in a FESTAL gathering. At the Mass we are in festal gatering with those saints and angils in heaven. The marriage supper of the Lamb.

What does it matter what we profess in Church. If you are asking me personally… As a preacher who speaks the truth I have stated in Church that I believe there “will be” One, Holy, Catholic (universal) Church… At the marriage supper of the Lamb. As recorded in Hebrews 12:23.

We are One, Holy and Catholic now just as they where in (Heb 12:22-23)
I will also quote (Eph 2:19) again " So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are FELLOW CITIZENS with the holy ones and members of the household of God."

What is it that our fellow citizens do in heaven? They are in a festal gathering. We are no longer strangers and sojourners we partake of this feast also.

Eden,
The passage you referenced in Revelation is an account that happens in heaven… not on earth… which further bolsters my argument that we “will” eventually be united as a “universal” Church.

WHAT ARGUMENT?

BlestOne
The answer I gave previous to your rebuttal, was that the keys represented evangelism, and with that charge to evangelism came the ability to “bind and loose” on earth (speaking of sins and the bondage of it). Jesus was specifically speaking to Peter in verses 18 and 19… but at this particular time, Peter was the only one who received a revelation of who Jesus was.

The implication is, that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter… but was implying that everyone who receives this revelation would also receive those same keys… and that same power to “bind and loose”.

That not what it says John. It is only your implication.
I know you dont believe this. The Methodist believe and know exactly who Jesus was. But they baptise babys so acording to you they are not the True Chruch. You telling me they have the keys to bind and lose but you do too, who does not believe in infant baptism? A Church that is not the True Chruch is binding and loosing sin?

We who have the Holy Spirit, are now witnesses to the same truth that Peter received… that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Since we have received that revelation… we are charged to tell others… and with that charge, and armed with the witness of the truth we, by our obedience have the keys to the kingdom of heaven (to allow others to enter in), and to bind (if we so chose not to be obedient to evangelize) or to loose (if we are obedient).

Thats right you have they keys to allow others to enter heaven. but when you lose that member he can go to the other guy down the street who has the same key

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Why are you following a man? A man and his oppositions? A man and his oppositions and his disobedience to the Church Christ founded?

You know I never claimed to follow John Smythe, you are only dragging this thread into circles by attempting to draw me into self-defeating arguments…

My arguments are not self-defeating… I have proven them over and over.

Your arguments are self-defeating though, because you claim to know the truth… just because you do. That is not a provable statement.

If you have a point, please let us know what it is… and stop attempting to lead me into an unprovable trap… you won’t be able to.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

The Baptist tradition was started by a fallable man, John Smyth, right? Was he a prophet or something special in the eyes of God? Was he something more than a man just like all of us?

If the Baptists tradition was started by a man, it wouldn’t be a tradition that I would want to be a part of. What we practice is biblical, which is what I believe John Smythe to have practiced…

…but this topic is not about John Smythe or Baptist practice, it is about the “Succession of Bishops”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[SPH1]

You have some good material to start with.

The Episcopacy was up and running from the begining, established long before any official canon.

Only someone who denies that Christ is actually heading, shepherding and building His Church could deny the Episcopacy.

Speaking of Christ, note that Christ Himself used the Diocesan model at the begining of Revelation, his letters to the seven Churches in Asia. Rev. 1:4. Unless one believes that there were literally only seven house-churches in Asia.

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

how are those verses quoted to you not uneversal.

I must say Odell, you have much better debating skill than others on this thread. At least you have a point to your arguments…

Here are the verses we are discussing,

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Verse 19 only implicates those who are saved as citizens with other saints (implied kingdom of God), and of the household of God (as his children).

The only kingdom that is comprised of only saints, is the kingdom of Christ, of which Christ Himself said…

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Verse 20 of Ephesians 2 states that this kingdom “are built” (implying that the kingdom consists of people), upon the the foundation of the Apostles and prophets.

My claim is that this verse is only referring to the 12 Apostles, (of which the number 12 lies substantiated by my other arguments).

If you can explicate these verses in a way to prove your argument for Apostolic Succession… I invite you to post those arguments. If you cannot reason through the scripture the validity of Apostolic Succession, but can only allude to the fact that the Catholic Church teaches it so you believe it… you have done nothing to probe your argument, you have only made a fidiestic statement… which is self-defeating because it cannot be proven.

But what does verse 22 say. “No, YOU HAVE approached mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in FESTAL gathering.”
Sounds like they they are already with the assembly of the firstborn. What you have given us is your false interpritation. And we want have any of that.

Notice they were with the hevenly angels in a FESTAL gathering. At the Mass we are in festal gatering with those saints and angils in heaven. The marriage supper of the Lamb

.

Here again is another example of a fidiestic statement, I have argued that Hebrews 12:22,23 is not speaking of a physical gathering, but a spiritual communion with other Christians by the Holy Spirit… Again, this is the “kingdom of Christ” which is not of this world.

For you to prove your point that the Catholic Mass is a physical gathering on Mount Zion, and the City of the Living God… you are going to have to do better than just claiming that during the Mass you are mysteriously translated to heaven… or that heaven comes to you. You can claim that all day long… but because you claim it doesn’t necessarily make it true… just like you could claim a triangle has four sides…
your argument is self-defeating because you can’t prove it. And if you can’t prove it then you are wasting our time by saying it.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Philthy]

My evidence lies in Biblical truth (which I will not go over again).

Biased biblical spin is what it is. I will not go over my proof of this again.
ba:

And even if I did not give sufficient proof that Mathias was not an Apostle, I have in fact given ample biblical proof that the Catholic Church has no basis for teaching that he was an Apostle.

Again - pure spin. Your inability to recognize the flaws of your arguments mitigates your further claims to have given “ample proof”. This is especially true given the number of times these simple flaws have been pointed out to you. Why is there no one to come to your aid? There are plenty of baptists on these forums - where are they? Why dont you find one Protestant on this forum to agree with you? No one seems to. It happens ALL THE TIME on other threads - but here, and in each of your threads, there is nothing but the deafening silence of you and your flawed arguments continually pedaled as if that would make them more acceptable.
ba:

Therefore, the Catholic Church has no basis for voting on anyone to succede Peter’s Apostolic office. Therefore, no basis for the Papacy.

Ahhhh - you restate it, again, yet there is nothing other than your personal testimony to substantiate it. No one here accepts your testimony.
ba:

You prove to me that Mathias was an Apostle, without a doubt, and I will reconsider my stance on Apostolic Succession.

John
www.gideonsword.net

There is no such thing as proof “without a doubt” because doubts exist independent of the proof. Even if a “perfect” proof were provided, a person might experience doubt regarding its conclusion. No wonder you have not been open to criticism of your thoughts - you had assumed that if our arguments were correct that you would no longer doubt us! But that is simply another flawed conclusion that you hold near and dear to your heart and which prevents you from seeing clearly. Think about it: does doubt require an imperfect proof or an imperfect appreciation of a perfect proof?

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You know I never claimed to follow John Smythe, you are only dragging this thread into circles by attempting to draw me into self-defeating arguments…

My arguments are not self-defeating… I have proven them over and over.

Your arguments are self-defeating though, because you claim to know the truth… just because you do. That is not a provable statement.

If you have a point, please let us know what it is… and stop attempting to lead me into an unprovable trap… you won’t be able to.

John
www.gideonsword.net

In a nutshell: The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. The Baptist faiths were founded by John Smyth.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sean Boyle,

If the Baptists tradition was started by a man, it wouldn’t be a tradition that I would want to be a part of. What we practice is biblical, which is what I believe John Smythe to have practiced…

…but this topic is not about John Smythe or Baptist practice, it is about the “Succession of Bishops”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Sorry the debating tactics are so poor, here.

The purpose was to prove that John Smythe was not part of the “Succession of Bishops” and in fact was really no one worthy of following. He was a man just like me or you, yet he start a new church which followed his own traditions. If the baptist church was started by someone in the “Succession of Bishops” please point them out with historical proof.

Now try “Proving it” with out going through the Catholic Church, first.

You either follow in the traditions of John Smythe as a baptist or you wouldn’t have known anything beside the True Church and still be christian. No John Smythe, no reason for the Baptist Church, right?

Please stop “protesting” Christ’s Church and come home.

 

[Eden]

Please stop “protesting” Christ’s Church and come home.

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Again - pure spin. Your inability to recognize the flaws of your arguments mitigates your further claims to have given “ample proof”. This is especially true given the number of times these simple flaws have been pointed out to you. Why is there no one to come to your aid? There are plenty of baptists on these forums - where are they? Why dont you find one Protestant on this forum to agree with you? No one seems to. It happens ALL THE TIME on other threads - but here, and in each of your threads, there is nothing but the deafening silence of you and your flawed arguments continually pedaled as if that would make them more acceptable

Rather than make a general claim that my simple flaws have been pointed out numerous times… why don’t you be specific? What flaws in my arguments are you talking about? If you don’t feel like I have been convinced, why don’t you try to convince me?

As far as no-one coming to my aid… Some of us are interested in a serious debate. I don’t get involved in any other thread where someone is debating a point that I agree with for a couple of reasons… 1. I could possibly hinder the person I am trying to help by steering the debate in a direction that the other “baptist” is trying to go. 2. It is really unfair to engage in “tag team” apologetics, and it gets confusing.

I don’t mind arguing with 10 or 15 different people at the same time… I can keep my composure and effectively debate by ignoring disparaging comments and I can resist being drawn into futile topics… another person getting involved would only hinder my efforts.

If you don’t agree with me… you simply don’t agree. You then have a choice… you can throw stones at me (like you’re doing), you can add a logical rebuttal to my claims, or you can be quite and let someone else debate, I don’t see what’s so hard about choosing one of the two latter actions.

there is nothing other than your personal testimony to substantiate it. No one here accepts your testimony.

Nothing but my explication of scripture, my comparitive analysis of other scripture, and God given ability to reason. You have every liberty to reject my postition. But if you’re not prepared to offer a rebuttal I can only assume that you can’t, and since my explanation is the most thorough I can only assume that I have given a better argument.

Think about it: does doubt require an imperfect proof or an imperfect appreciation of a perfect proof?

Isn’t that the beauty of debate? To postulate and rebut proofs so that we and others can nuetrally accept the most reasonable position? What position does throwing stones bolster?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

In a nutshell: The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. The Baptist faiths were founded by John Smyth.

I think you know better than that… You even posted an oppositional position last night. Did you make the above statement for my benefit, or for the benefit of the impressionable bystanders of this debate?

John Smythe was not the founder of the Baptist faith… He only took up the same position as others before him, as he was influenced by the anabaptists of the late 16th century.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Seanboyle,

The purpose was to prove that John Smythe was not part of the “Succession of Bishops” and in fact was really no one worthy of following.

To claim that the leadership of John Smythe was invalid becuase of the fact that John Smythe was not a “successor” of the Bishops of the Catholic Church is a position influenced by the teaching of “Apostolic Succession”, which is your perspective based on your preconceived ideas born out of the Catholic Church.

John Smythe was really no one worth following according to the Catholic Church, the Anglican church, the Hindu’s, the Muslims, or anyone else…

How does it defeat my position as a Baptist to say that you don’t agree with John Smythe? I could say that I don’t agree with the authority of the Pope, but that statement alone doesn’t prove anything.

If the baptist church was started by someone in the “Succession of Bishops” please point them out with historical proof.
Now try “Proving it” with out going through the Catholic Church, first.

For me to even consider doing that would be giving credence to your doctrine of “Apostolic Succession”. You know my position, and given my position John Smythe did not have to succede any other Bishop to be a legitimate bishop.

You either follow in the traditions of John Smythe as a baptist or you wouldn’t have known anything beside the True Church and still be christian. No John Smythe, no reason for the Baptist Church, right?

Actually, no. John Smythe and Thomas Hellweys held the same position that they did in 1608 well before they moved to Amsterdam… and well before they were called “baptist”… in fact, they were called “anabaptists” because the Anglican church associated John Smythe and his church with the other anabaptists and their beliefs. This only proves that the anabaptists during that time period were the same as the Baptists of 1608 in faith and practice.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early churches were Catholic right? Why is it not recorded in the New Testament that they were called “Catholic”? The only reason you can give for that is that those early churches were Catholic in “faith and practice”… That is the same argument I am using to prove that Baptists existed well before John Smythe and Thomas Hellweys… they existed as Donatists, Paulicians, Vale Olchan, etc.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early churches were Catholic right? Why is it not recorded in the New Testament that they were called “Catholic”? The only reason you can give for that is that those early churches were Catholic in “faith and practice”… That is the same argument I am using to prove that Baptists existed well before John Smythe and Thomas Hellweys… they existed as Donatists, Paulicians, Vale Olchan, etc.

As one of the impressionable bystanders , can I ask, Do the Baptists today share the same beliefs as the Donatists? The Paulicians? The Vale Olchans?

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I think you know better than that… You even posted an oppositional position last night. Did you make the above statement for my benefit, or for the benefit of the impressionable bystanders of this debate?

John Smythe was not the founder of the Baptist faith… He only took up the same position as others before him, as he was influenced by the anabaptists of the late 16th century.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Here is an article about the history of the Baptists at New Advent showing the origins of the Baptist congregations:

“The first Baptist congregations were organized in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Almost at the very start, the denomination was divided into “Arminian”, or “General” Baptists, so named because of their belief in the universal character of Christ’s redemption, and “Calvinistic” or “Particular” Baptists, who maintained that Christ’s redemption was intended for the elect alone. The origin of the General Baptists is connected with the name of John Smyth (d. 1612), pastor of a church at Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, which had separated from the Church of England.”

“The first Baptist Church in the United States did not spring historically from the English Baptist churches, but had an independent origin. It was established by Roger Williams (c. 1600-83). Williams was a minister of the Church of England, who, owing to his separatist views, fled to America in search of religious freedom.”

newadvent.org/cathen/02278a.htm

One thing that is clear, the Baptist congregations are not the Church founded by Christ. John Smyth, Roger Williams, or the anabaptists of the 1600s, none of these people are Christ.

 

[Eden]

Seanboyle,

To claim that the leadership of John Smythe was invalid becuase of the fact that John Smythe was not a “successor” of the Bishops of the Catholic Church is a position influenced by the teaching of “Apostolic Succession”, which is your perspective based on your preconceived ideas born out of the Catholic Church.

One cannot claim to be in the true Church, and yet separate from it and create entirely new and contradictory teachings. But John Smyth didn’t even separate from the true Church. He separated from the Church of England, a false church created by King Henry VIII, who broke from the true Church, so that he could divorce and remarry as he pleased.

John The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early churches were Catholic right?

The writings of the early Christians are thoroughly Catholic in their content. The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Not one Christian in the first 500 years believed the Eucharist was symbolic. An entire thread could be devoted to the Catholicity of the Early Church Fathers.

Why is it not recorded in the New Testament that they were called “Catholic”? The only reason you can give for that is that those early churches were Catholic in “faith and practice”… That is the same argument I am using to prove that Baptists existed well before John Smythe and Thomas Hellweys… they existed as Donatists, Paulicians, Vale Olchan, etc.

Because the word “Catholic” is the name of the Church today, you are forgetting that it means “universal”. That was used to describe the Church in the early centuries. Why does it not say “catholic” in the New Testament? Well, in Greek it does. “Katholikos” has been translated into English as “universal”. Are you saying that the New Testament does not describe a universal Church?

Also, St. Ignatius of Antioch was the auditor to the Apostles and is said to have learned at the feet of the Apostle John. Remember that Antioch is the place in Acts where we first see the term “Christians”. Here is what he had to say:

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). *

 

[Eden]

Here are more references to the Church founded by Christ as the “Catholic Church” (note these are all from Christians who wrote before the New Testament was even set):

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” *Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155). *

“…to be in honour however with** the Catholic Church** for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” *The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177). *

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180). *
“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” *Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200). *

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” *Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254). *

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” *Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325). *

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” *Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325). *

 

[Eden]

So, we can see that the Church was and is “Catholic”.

What should be of greater concern to a Baptist, however, is the complete lack of early Christian references to a “Baptist” church.

Bibleapologist insists that the Baptist church wasn’t founded by John Smyth, but the burden is on him to demonstrate that the Baptist church is the church of the apostles. The problem, of course, is that he cannot. First, there is not one single early Church father in the first seven centuries of Christianity who ever referenced the “baptist” Church (but many quotes referring to the “Catholic church.”)

More quotes by early Church Fathers referring to the “Catholic Church” here:

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_II

If you disagree that “Baptist” was not the name of the Church founded by Christ, then provide the quotes and the sources from which you are quoting. Further, the Baptist church has no internal or systematic consistency on key core Christian doctrines, like justification, salvation, and, yes, baptism.

Again, the burden is on you to prove the apostolic roots of the Baptist church, but I assure you that you cannot. The Baptist church denies key tenets of the Christian faith that were believed and wrote about by the early church Fathers, such as the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, salvation by grace through faith and works, baptismal regeneration, Peter as the chief shepherd of the universal church, etc.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[NotWorthy]

That is the same argument I am using to prove that Baptists existed well before John Smythe and Thomas Hellweys… they existed as Donatists, Paulicians, Vale Olchan, etc.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I’m still intrigued by this statement, here.

Which one of these Paulician beliefs are still alive in the Baptist community today, and if any have changed, why did they change:

The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. … They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John, iv, 10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter’s epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the “Gospel and Apostle”, apparently only St Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.

This comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Paulicians

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m also curious as to what part of Donatism is still alive and thriving in the Baptist community:

Majorinus and other leaders of this faction asserted that the sacraments were invalid, even wicked in the eyes of God, if dispensed by a traditor bishop, priest, or deacon. This view expanded to include clergy who were in a state of mortal sin of whatever sort.

By denying the intrinsic efficacy of the sacraments the Donatists claimed the sacraments could be celebrated validly only by those in the state of grace. They required the re-baptism of any Catholic who came over to their sect.

Donatists had the outward forms of Catholicism, including bishops, priests, and deacons, Mass, and the veneration of the relics of martyrs. The heresy of Donatism lay not primarily in the denial of particular Catholic doctrines but in the assertion that only “sinless” men could administer the sacraments validly. The schism was effected by the rejection of the lawful authority of validly-elected Catholic bishops and culminated in illicit but valid ordinations of schismatic bishops, priests, and deacons.

And this is interesting:

Donatus taught that death for the “cause,” even death by suicide, was holy and merited a martyr’s crown and eternal life. They did their best to incite Catholics and pagans to kill them. When their provocations failed, they sometimes took their own lives, a favored method being to leap from high cliffs with the cry “Deo laudes!” …

In keeping with their penchant for violence there arose among the Donatists a vile faction known as the Circumcellions*.* These ruffians’ main goal was to harass, despoil, and even kill Catholics. They preyed on the cellae (farms, rural chapels, and country estates).Although Donatus himself was not a Circumcellion, he gave tacit approval to the depredations of these gangs and wielded influence through them to force Catholics to convert to his religion…

While killing Catholics was a favored pastime, the principal aim of the Circumcellions was the destruction of Catholic churches, Bible manuscripts, and sacred objects. This aroused the ire of the government, which enacted anti-Donatist laws which confiscated their property and forced their re-entry into the Catholic Church. The North African Catholic bishops welcomed the first intervention, but not the second.

So, John, according to your words, you guys were the first Christians to persecute other Christians, us Catholics!!!

 

[Odell]

bibleapolagest

You said that Paul recieved the power to preach and was only a apostle because he had seen Jesus. You quote (Act 9:3) Showing that is when he saw Jesus. If you notice even after Paul was chosen by Jesus he only ministered after the laying on of hands by a bishop verses 17-20 of the same chapter 9 read the whole chapter 9 you will be amazed. It is proof of the necessity of a sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate succssor of the apostles.

(Acts 15:22-27)- preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church.

verse 24 shows that some without mandate from the apostles went out and preached. That was a big no no. They went out with out the athority of the rest of the apostles.

Notice that people where upset but they did not go start there own Church. They waited untill more to come preach who had the athority do preach. They were sent out by bishops they where not people who just picked up a bible and preach what they believe to be true.